CA Unpub Decisions

This case involves an unsuccessful claim of elder abuse. The verdict was in favor of defendant, who plaintiffs allege had turned off the oxygen supply of surviving 86-year-old patient. The plaintiffs’ theory at trial was that the facility was not licensed to care for patients such as plaintiff, who require a gastrostomy tube (a gastric feeding tube), and that turning off her oxygen would result in Farber’s transfer to a hospital, thus no longer jeopardizing the facility’s license. The jury apparently disbelieved the accusation of a caregiver at the Beverly Royale, specifically finding in its special verdict that defendant did not turn off plaintiff’s oxygen supply.

Court concluded that although the defense failed to give the requisite pretrial notice of witnesses, any error in permitting plaintiff’s treating physician to testify for the defense as a percipient witness, who essentially just acknowledged his various entries in hospital medical records, was harmless. Nor is a new trial warranted by an unanswered defense question regarding Medi-Cal coverage for medications. Equally unavailing are complaints about purported references to the relative wealth and power of two of the plaintiffs who are attorneys. Finally, there is no merit to the claim of prejudice from unobjected to testimony or comments in closing argument about plaintiff’s religion. Judgment affirmed.

Mother and Father appeal from the termination of their parental rights over their son (minor). Appellants argue the juvenile court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Court conditionally reverses the juvenile court’s order to ensure full compliance with the ICWA. Mother’s additional argument that she established a beneficial relationship with minor within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) lacks merit.

Twelve-year-old minor is a dependent of the court under a permanent plan of long-term foster care. The dependency court granted Amber’s mother, twice-monthly visits monitored by minor’s therapist and gave the Department of Children and Family Services discretion to liberalize visitation. Mother did not appeal the order and it is now final.

Mother and Father each appeal from the termination of parental rights to minor, who is now six years old. Court previously reviewed this matter on Mother’s petition for extraordinary writ challenging the juvenile court’s order of August 25, 2005, terminating family reunification services and referring the matter to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing, then scheduled for December 22, 2005. In a decision on the merits, court denied the petition in an unpublished decision filed December 15, 2005.
The section 366.26 hearing has since been held, and the juvenile court terminated parental rights after a contested hearing. Respondent (the Department) acknowledges that improper notice was given under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1902 et seq.; “ICWA”) so concedes the matter must be reversed and remanded for proper notice and then, if minor is found not to be an Indian child, the order terminating parental rights should be reinstated. Court agree.

Mother of minor, appeals from an order terminating her parental rights, based in part on a prior order denying her visitation with minor. On appeal, mother contends that a "Notice of Intent to File Writ Petition and Request for Record"? that she filed should be construed as a timely filed notice of appeal. Mother also contends that she may contest the denial of visitation on appeal in the absence of an objection in the juvenile court because her attorney's failure to object constituted ineffective assistance and that her failure to challenge the juvenile court's visitation order by writ must be excused because the clerk failed to timely serve notice of her right to file a writ and the clerk mailed the notice to the incorrect address. Mother further contends that the order denying her visitation was not supported by substantial evidence and, thus, it and the resulting order terminating her parental rights must be reversed and that the termination of her parental rights after she was erroneously denied visitation violates due process. Court affirmed.

Defendant, appeals from a judgment after he pled nolo contendere to second degree commercial burglary, admitted that he had previously served a prison term, and waived all presentence custody credits. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for one year, four months for the burglary plus one year for the enhancement. Defendant was also ordered to provide a deoxyribonucleic acid sample. Defendant appealed his conviction based on sentencing error. Court examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no argument exists favorable to defendant. The judgment is affirmed.

Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the Sacramento County Juvenile Court found that minor was a person described within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he drove under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury to another, a misdemeanor; drove with a .08 percent or more blood-alcohol level, a misdemeanor; and violated the basic speed law, an infraction. Minor was placed on probation for six months and committed to the care and custody of his parents. On appeal, the minor contends (1) his suppression motion should have been granted because his arrest was not supported by probable cause, and (2) counts one and two are not supported by sufficient evidence that he was under the influence and his blood-alcohol level exceeded .08 percent. Court affirmed the judgment.

Mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court's orders denying her reunification services. Appellant claims she was improperly denied reunification services. Court affirmed.

Defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to second degree burglary, and admitted a prior strike. The court sentenced him to a stipulated four years in prison: double the two-year middle term for second degree burglary with a prior strike. The court denied a certificate of probable cause. A review of the entire record has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented defendant on this appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant appeals an order declaring the foster parents of his two dependent children, the children's de facto parents. Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by granting them de facto parent status. Court reversed.

After court reversed the judgment in this case based on our conclusion that the trial court had committed various errors in ruling on defendant's Wheeler/Batson motions, the Supreme Court granted review. That court now has transferred the case back to this court with directions to vacate its original decision and reconsider the Wheeler/Batson issues in light of People v. Avila, and People v. Johnson. Having done that, court concluded the trial court erred in finding that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination and thus denying defendant's Wheeler/Batson motion. In accordance with People v. Johnson, court conditionally reversed the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of attempting to conduct the remaining steps in the Wheeler/Batson analysis.

Father/victim, called the police because his son, 15-year-old (appellant), refused to turn the radio down. San Bernardino Police Officer Heidi Pahls responded to the call. After Pahls handcuffed appellant and had him sit on his bed, appellant glared at his father and began kicking him as he carried the radio out of the room. Father did not react to the kicking, but continued to carry the radio away. The court then found appellant had committed misdemeanor battery, as charged in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 Petition.
On appeal, appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that he committed battery. Court disagreed and affirmed.

Mother appeals from an order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition seeking modification of an earlier order that no reunification services be provided because Mother's whereabouts were unknown. Mother's petition sought to modify that order and to reinstate family reunification services with the goal of returning her two daughters to her custody. Court conclude that Mother did not meet her burden of showing that the modification of the order was in the children's best interests. Mother failed to rebut the presumption in favor of the children's continued stable placement in the home of their prospective adoptive parents, with whom the children were strongly bonded. There was also evidence that return to Mother's custody would harm the children's development and emotional well-being. The evidence supported the trial court's exercise of its discretion, and court affirmed the juvenile court's denial of the petition.

Petitioner is the mother of a six-year-old girl and a one-year-old boy. Mother filed this writ petition challenging an order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency planning hearing as to the children. Mother's sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred in terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Court rejected Mother's challenge and denied her petition.